[mass55th]

It's not a bizarre choice. I have a friend who lost several siblings (brothers & sisters) to different types of cancer, including ovarian and breast cancer. Two of her nieces (daughters of the two sisters who died of cancer) have also had bouts of breast and ovarian cancer. My friend got tested, and the doctor told her that it wasn't a matter of IF she'd get cancer, it was only a matter of WHEN. She chose to have her breasts removed.

You're saying you'd rather wait until you get diagnosed with cancer, to do anything, instead of doing something to prevent getting it altogether. If you had a 90% chance of getting cancer by not having the surgery, and a less than 20% chance of getting cancer by having the surgery, which option would you choose?

[vladimir998]

“You’re saying you’d rather wait until you get diagnosed with cancer, to do anything, instead of doing something to prevent getting it altogether.”

I’m saying, if you’re not sick, you’re not sick.

“If you had a 90% chance of getting cancer by not having the surgery, and a less than 20% chance of getting cancer by having the surgery, which option would you choose?”

I am in fact in a similar situation (and no, it’s none of your business what that is) and I will not have surgery unless there’s a need to have surgery. I don’t take medicine unless I’m sick. I don’t have surgery unless I need it. I don’t pay taxes unless I owe them. I generally don’t eat unless I’m hungry (although my waistline would disagree). I live by a simple rule: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If she didn’t have cancer why remove healthy body parts?